Give examples
The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere
- Thread starter ?!..!?
- Start date
-
- Tags
- a bunch of trolls trolling each other aesthetic jihad chicks dig guys with money cia lesbian david lesbian do you tongue punch the dirt star? dolezal1977 eating pussy without asking everyone on this board is a troll extraterrestrial bisexual feminist travis bickle justified ancients of noncing lesbian separatism luka's crop top malelesbian: english rp boy toy malethespian mansplaining feminism mr tea confirmed pegging freak mrs tea eaten out 24/7 prevent prevent! sarlacc pit taking the filth the art of trolling the feminonce massive the perils of self-publishing the viper of cunnilingus undisciplined lockerroom pussy eating unimaginable anguish version's throbbing penis
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Golf?
I don't see how playing golf will help us fight oppression or the manosphere.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I thought you just wanted an example of human behaviour?
No, I wanted an example of non-gendered human behavior that will help us fight oppression.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Women can play golf too, you know. Pretty sexist of you to assume they can't, actually.
jenks
thread death
Not thinking in reductive binaries for a start.
I criticize binaries from within a binary system. By encouraging men to act feminine, I'm promoting an alternative lifestyle that actively defies the gender binary. You can't escape binaries by ignoring them. The gender binary is a cultural institution independent of your individual thought. Where is your critique of the gender binary? Where is your alternative behavior that escapes classification as masculine or feminine? Give a positive concrete example, not just a negative abstraction.
Furthermore, there's nothing reductive about recognizing feminine culture. Masculine culture aims to reduce femininity to the same, to understand femininity in solely masculine terms. Ignoring femininity, as you do, only helps the patriarchy hide femininity. Since femininity is coded as the Other, that entity which cannot reduce to the self-same subject, society codes non-reductive thought as feminine. If I'm so reductive, why do I promote the coexistence of reductionism and anti-reductionism in society? And where is your non-reductive account of gender-neutral behavior?
jenks
thread death
I think you start from a false premise and you’ve tried this line before and didn’t get what you wanted so you’ve set up a new thread rehashing the same stuff. It’s all a bit old fashioned isn’t it, this masculine/feminine behaviours? It doesn’t reflect how I think or see the world. Yes, I recognise a patriarchal society is at work but I don’t think the way to combat it is by clinging on to reductive views of masculine and feminine behaviour.
I’d prefer you didnt try and tell me what I think either - that’s the kind of thing ‘the patriarchy’ does only too well.
And that penultimate question, what even is that?
I’d prefer you didnt try and tell me what I think either - that’s the kind of thing ‘the patriarchy’ does only too well.
And that penultimate question, what even is that?
But what is the false premise? And how do you see the world? And what is a non-reductive view of masculinity and femininity? And what are you doing to fight the manosphere and the patriarchy? Atleast I have a concrete strategy for combating toxic masculinity.
I've already explained why I consider my view non-reductive. I accept both non-reductive thought and reductionism. The culture of the Other will never be reductionist, to be a reductionist about the Other is to eliminate the Other. Thus, I have an alternative to mainstream masculine reductionist culture, namely, the culture of the Other. What's your counter-argument?
For the record, I didn't mean to repeat myself. My earlier thread was about a different topic, namely identity politics, but everyone seemed drawn to my views on feminine culture. Hence I decided to make a separate topic on femininity. Also, I didn't want to be accused of thread necromancy, since no one has posted in my earlier thread for a few months. I'll try to make more different threads in the future, but I will always promote Judith Butler. The main reason I am here on this forum is to sing the praises of Judith Butler.
Also, I won't make claims about your views if you don't play armchair psychologist about my reasons for making threads.
Sleater-Kinney is feminine culture par excellence. And this song is a good example of the kind of gender-blending androgyny I endorse. By identifying as a man, these women affirm their equality with men. Masculine women subvert the gender binary just like feminine men do, i.e. they deconstruct the gender binary while remaining within the limits of sexed culture.
sus
Moderator
Everyone understands that "feminine culture" exists and that different activities and behaviors are coded masculine or feminine. This is obvious and doesn't need to be argued, and anyone who says otherwise can be safely ignored. The status of the conceptual binary "feminine vs masculine" (e.g. how natural vs constructed) and the usefulness of invoking it, are all fair game. But the concept of femininity clearly exists.
sus
Moderator
I do not think it is very sound to say that women are these beautifully altruistic beings, and men are inherently egocentric. Sarah Hyrdy's "
Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species" is a good introductory account to maternal viciousness.
I think it is might be fair to say that Western men and women, at least, have cultivated different strategic approaches to social conscientiousness and obliviousness, and that the feminine-coded strategy is probably a better fit with today's global village.
Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species" is a good introductory account to maternal viciousness.
I think it is might be fair to say that Western men and women, at least, have cultivated different strategic approaches to social conscientiousness and obliviousness, and that the feminine-coded strategy is probably a better fit with today's global village.
sus
Moderator
Anyway, the biggest problem with the manosphere is its situatedness within a larger discursive approach of conflict (discussed at length by Serres, Bourdieu, Latour) in which none of its claims can be acknowledged by opposing forces, since it would "give ammunition" to the "other side." This opinion inverts the reality: by giving no quarter, you drive the other side to greater acts of extremism.
Feminism had this same problem in the mid-to-late 20th C, which led to Valerie Solanas-style ideology, which in turn (unfairly) discredited feminism as a whole for many observers.
So in this way, I agree with you: A "feminine" coded approach to cultural discourse, which emphasized cooperation and mutual recognition, over conflict and dominance, would in fact fix a lot of the manosphere's issues. Unfortunately, contemporary feminisms mainly perpetuate discursive warfare, rather than try to bridge it. In this way, the most admirable feminine trait has been stamped out entirely within "neoliberal" feminisms.
Feminism had this same problem in the mid-to-late 20th C, which led to Valerie Solanas-style ideology, which in turn (unfairly) discredited feminism as a whole for many observers.
So in this way, I agree with you: A "feminine" coded approach to cultural discourse, which emphasized cooperation and mutual recognition, over conflict and dominance, would in fact fix a lot of the manosphere's issues. Unfortunately, contemporary feminisms mainly perpetuate discursive warfare, rather than try to bridge it. In this way, the most admirable feminine trait has been stamped out entirely within "neoliberal" feminisms.
sus
Moderator
The late biologist Lynn Margulis is one of those women to recognize coordination and bridge-building (local consilience & pidgin-formation) as the key inheritance of "feminine" perspectives. It's one of the many reasons why her work is so important as a counter-balance to the masculine (capitalistic, conflict-oriented) paradigm of neo-Darwinist evolutionary thought.
Great points, I agree. I really want to read Bordieu. I created my theory of male femininity (the theory of the male lesbian) to make feminism more accessible to men. I definitely think that a main way we win the war against the manosphere is by getting more feminists to talk directly to the men most susceptible to the manosphere's toxic lies. Like Butler, I want an inclusive feminism, one that includes even straight men.
shiels
_
mate if ur gay its ok just go so suck dick you dont need to launch a fake school of thought about it